Who wants to get beat by the Patriots?

Husky · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

On Oct 24, 12:40 pm, "observer" wrote:
> ---
>
> Well, according to media pundits, every team
> in the league is futily endeavoring to get their
> hats (and helmets) handed to them by what
> some are calling the "greatest team of all time."
>
> -7- one-sided Patriot wins, with their only
> worthy competition coming in 2 quarters (the
> 2nd & 3rd) versus the Cowboys, argue in favor
> of Patriot domination.
>
> Not only are the Patriots dominating the league
> thus far (albeit that only 1 team they've faced,
> the Cowboys, has more wins than losses), pun-
> dits seem to think that only the Colts have a
> chance of upsetting the Patriots.
>
> ---
>
> Counter Argument
>
> The Cowboys, the one team to stay with the
> Patriots for 3 quarters, despite starting at a
> 14-0 deficit, have the following factors in
> their favor:
>
> 1) Anthony Henry, their 2nd-best corner and
> their leading interceptor, should return
> and bolster the Cowboys defense
>
> 2) Tank Johnson, defensive tackle starter
> with what was an impressive Bears de-
> fense, will play his initial game as a Cow-
> boy versus the Giants
>
> 3) Terry Glenn, the Cowboys primary deep
> threat, is scheduled to return around mid-
> season, though it's unclear -if- he'll be
> able to provide an effective deep threat
> this year
>
> 4) Their initial drive versus the Vikings gives
> hope that the Cowboys 'slow start' problems
> are coming to an end, an invaluable asset
> versus the Patriots, the #1 1st quarter scor-
> ing team in the league
>
> 5) Tony Romo revamped his game after the
> Bills' interceptionitis game, and aside from
> that one game, Tony has come closer to play-
> ing at a Brady-like level than any QB in the
> league -- Brady, on a record-setting pace,
> surely someone will figure out a way to
> slow him down somewhere along the way,
> or -not- -- if -not-, it will be difficult for
> *any* team to beat the Patriots this year
>
> 6) The Cowboys, with only a short week after
> an emotional near-loss to the Bills, did -not-
> have adequate time to prepare for that Patriots
> game, -but- next time, if it occurs, they will
>
> 7) Garrett's & Phillips' -new- offensive -and-
> defensive schemes, still works in progress,
> and with the Cowboys improving in pres-
> sure, therein resides hope that by the time
> they have a rematch with the Patriots, -if-
> that happens, they'll be able to adversely
> impact Brady's game in a manner they were
> unable to accomplish last time
>
> ---

Hey Toricco said the Pats hadn't "beaten anyone." Send that to him!

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>dallas-cowboys

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

---

Well, according to media pundits, every team
in the league is futily endeavoring to get their
hats (and helmets) handed to them by what
some are calling the "greatest team of all time."

-7- one-sided Patriot wins, with their only
worthy competition coming in 2 quarters (the
2nd & 3rd) versus the Cowboys, argue in favor
of Patriot domination.

Not only are the Patriots dominating the league
thus far (albeit that only 1 team they've faced,
the Cowboys, has more wins than losses), pun-
dits seem to think that only the Colts have a
chance of upsetting the Patriots.

---

Counter Argument

The Cowboys, the one team to stay with the
Patriots for 3 quarters, despite starting at a
14-0 deficit, have the following factors in
their favor:

1) Anthony Henry, their 2nd-best corner and
their leading interceptor, should return
and bolster the Cowboys defense

2) Tank Johnson, defensive tackle starter
with what was an impressive Bears de-
fense, will play his initial game as a Cow-
boy versus the Giants

3) Terry Glenn, the Cowboys primary deep
threat, is scheduled to return around mid-
season, though it's unclear -if- he'll be
able to provide an effective deep threat
this year

4) Their initial drive versus the Vikings gives
hope that the Cowboys 'slow start' problems
are coming to an end, an invaluable asset
versus the Patriots, the #1 1st quarter scor-
ing team in the league

5) Tony Romo revamped his game after the
Bills' interceptionitis game, and aside from
that one game, Tony has come closer to play-
ing at a Brady-like level than any QB in the
league -- Brady, on a record-setting pace,
surely someone will figure out a way to
slow him down somewhere along the way,
or -not- -- if -not-, it will be difficult for
*any* team to beat the Patriots this year

6) The Cowboys, with only a short week after
an emotional near-loss to the Bills, did -not-
have adequate time to prepare for that Patriots
game, -but- next time, if it occurs, they will

7) Garrett's & Phillips' -new- offensive -and-
defensive schemes, still works in progress,
and with the Cowboys improving in pres-
sure, therein resides hope that by the time
they have a rematch with the Patriots, -if-
that happens, they'll be able to adversely
impact Brady's game in a manner they were
unable to accomplish last time

---

Dave St.Onge · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 8

Although you must remember that the Pats were missing arguably their two
best defensive players: Seymour and Harrison...

Dave

"observer" wrote in message $0$12180$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> ---
>
> Well, according to media pundits, every team
> in the league is futily endeavoring to get their
> hats (and helmets) handed to them by what
> some are calling the "greatest team of all time."
>
> -7- one-sided Patriot wins, with their only
> worthy competition coming in 2 quarters (the
> 2nd & 3rd) versus the Cowboys, argue in favor
> of Patriot domination.
>
> Not only are the Patriots dominating the league
> thus far (albeit that only 1 team they've faced,
> the Cowboys, has more wins than losses), pun-
> dits seem to think that only the Colts have a
> chance of upsetting the Patriots.
>
> ---
>
> Counter Argument
>
> The Cowboys, the one team to stay with the
> Patriots for 3 quarters, despite starting at a
> 14-0 deficit, have the following factors in
> their favor:
>
> 1) Anthony Henry, their 2nd-best corner and
> their leading interceptor, should return
> and bolster the Cowboys defense
>
> 2) Tank Johnson, defensive tackle starter
> with what was an impressive Bears de-
> fense, will play his initial game as a Cow-
> boy versus the Giants
>
> 3) Terry Glenn, the Cowboys primary deep
> threat, is scheduled to return around mid-
> season, though it's unclear -if- he'll be
> able to provide an effective deep threat
> this year
>
> 4) Their initial drive versus the Vikings gives
> hope that the Cowboys 'slow start' problems
> are coming to an end, an invaluable asset
> versus the Patriots, the #1 1st quarter scor-
> ing team in the league
>
> 5) Tony Romo revamped his game after the
> Bills' interceptionitis game, and aside from
> that one game, Tony has come closer to play-
> ing at a Brady-like level than any QB in the
> league -- Brady, on a record-setting pace,
> surely someone will figure out a way to
> slow him down somewhere along the way,
> or -not- -- if -not-, it will be difficult for
> *any* team to beat the Patriots this year
>
> 6) The Cowboys, with only a short week after
> an emotional near-loss to the Bills, did -not-
> have adequate time to prepare for that Patriots
> game, -but- next time, if it occurs, they will
>
> 7) Garrett's & Phillips' -new- offensive -and-
> defensive schemes, still works in progress,
> and with the Cowboys improving in pres-
> sure, therein resides hope that by the time
> they have a rematch with the Patriots, -if-
> that happens, they'll be able to adversely
> impact Brady's game in a manner they were
> unable to accomplish last time
>
> ---
>
>

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"Dave St.Onge" wrote in message @corp.supernews.com...
>
> Although you must remember that the Pats were missing arguably their two
> best defensive players: Seymour and Harrison...

Rodney Harrison played -- had 4 tackles,
1 sack, and 1 forced fumble, per the NFL
Stats page:
http://tinyurl.com/2352tw

As for Seymour, yes, a great player, -but-
the Patriots are renowned for finding subs
that perform admirably, and Jarvis Green,
Seymour's replacement, is no exception,
having had 18 tackles -and- 3 sacks in
Seymour's absence. So, a drop-off, sure,
but not that much of one, and Seymour's
return shouldn't make that big of a diff
in the performance of the Pats' 'D'.

On the Cowboys' side of the ball, the
return of Anthony Henry, big diff com-
pared to 2nd corner being manned by
Jacques Reeves and 3rd corner being
Nate Jones. Nate will move to the side-
lines, Jacques will move back to 3rd
corner, and Anthony Henry will move
back to 2nd corner. Terry Glenn, if up
to his former skills, should open up the
passing attack with a genuine deep
threat that's been missing, an opening
which should free T.O. or Witten to
single coverage more often.

Tank Williams, hard to know how big
of an impact he will make.

>
> "observer" wrote in message
> $0$12180$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Well, according to media pundits, every team
> > in the league is futily endeavoring to get their
> > hats (and helmets) handed to them by what
> > some are calling the "greatest team of all time."
> >
> > -7- one-sided Patriot wins, with their only
> > worthy competition coming in 2 quarters (the
> > 2nd & 3rd) versus the Cowboys, argue in favor
> > of Patriot domination.
> >
> > Not only are the Patriots dominating the league
> > thus far (albeit that only 1 team they've faced,
> > the Cowboys, has more wins than losses), pun-
> > dits seem to think that only the Colts have a
> > chance of upsetting the Patriots.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Counter Argument
> >
> > The Cowboys, the one team to stay with the
> > Patriots for 3 quarters, despite starting at a
> > 14-0 deficit, have the following factors in
> > their favor:
> >
> > 1) Anthony Henry, their 2nd-best corner and
> > their leading interceptor, should return
> > and bolster the Cowboys defense
> >
> > 2) Tank Johnson, defensive tackle starter
> > with what was an impressive Bears de-
> > fense, will play his initial game as a Cow-
> > boy versus the Giants
> >
> > 3) Terry Glenn, the Cowboys primary deep
> > threat, is scheduled to return around mid-
> > season, though it's unclear -if- he'll be
> > able to provide an effective deep threat
> > this year
> >
> > 4) Their initial drive versus the Vikings gives
> > hope that the Cowboys 'slow start' problems
> > are coming to an end, an invaluable asset
> > versus the Patriots, the #1 1st quarter scor-
> > ing team in the league
> >
> > 5) Tony Romo revamped his game after the
> > Bills' interceptionitis game, and aside from
> > that one game, Tony has come closer to play-
> > ing at a Brady-like level than any QB in the
> > league -- Brady, on a record-setting pace,
> > surely someone will figure out a way to
> > slow him down somewhere along the way,
> > or -not- -- if -not-, it will be difficult for
> > *any* team to beat the Patriots this year
> >
> > 6) The Cowboys, with only a short week after
> > an emotional near-loss to the Bills, did -not-
> > have adequate time to prepare for that Patriots
> > game, -but- next time, if it occurs, they will
> >
> > 7) Garrett's & Phillips' -new- offensive -and-
> > defensive schemes, still works in progress,
> > and with the Cowboys improving in pres-
> > sure, therein resides hope that by the time
> > they have a rematch with the Patriots, -if-
> > that happens, they'll be able to adversely
> > impact Brady's game in a manner they were
> > unable to accomplish last time
> >
> > ---

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$12164$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "Dave St.Onge" wrote in message
> @corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Although you must remember that the Pats were missing arguably their two
>> best defensive players: Seymour and Harrison...
>
> Rodney Harrison played -- had 4 tackles,
> 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble, per the NFL
> Stats page:
> http://tinyurl.com/2352tw
>
> As for Seymour, yes, a great player, -but-
> the Patriots are renowned for finding subs
> that perform admirably, and Jarvis Green,
> Seymour's replacement, is no exception,
> having had 18 tackles -and- 3 sacks in
> Seymour's absence. So, a drop-off, sure,
> but not that much of one, and Seymour's
> return shouldn't make that big of a diff
> in the performance of the Pats' 'D'.

Why wouldn't the return of a team's best defensive player make a big
difference? I like Jarvis Green and all, but he's not even the undisputed
starter when Seymour's been out. Mike Wright splits snaps with him (when
Wright is healthy), mostly because Wright is more stout against the run.
Green can best be classified as a pass-rushing specialist, and he does a
great job of it. Out of the base defense, there are deficiencies in his
game. As for Seymour, well, there aren't any deficiencies in his game. The
dropoff is substantial in the base D.

And not only that, but the pass-rushing alignment has taken a hit with
Seymour's absence. Yeah, Green does a great job in the middle of it, but
they get their best pressure with two defensive tackles, not one. They've
been using Wilfork or Warren as the second guy, but neither of them has been
able to generate much pressure out of that alignment. In the last game,
they were actually using Adalius Thomas there. They need Seymour back.

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote in message
@giganews.com...
>
> "observer" wrote in message
> $0$12164$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> >
> > "Dave St.Onge" wrote in message
> > @corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> Although you must remember that the Pats were missing arguably their two
> >> best defensive players: Seymour and Harrison...
> >
> > Rodney Harrison played -- had 4 tackles,
> > 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble, per the NFL
> > Stats page:
> > http://tinyurl.com/2352tw
> >
> > As for Seymour, yes, a great player, -but-
> > the Patriots are renowned for finding subs
> > that perform admirably, and Jarvis Green,
> > Seymour's replacement, is no exception,
> > having had 18 tackles -and- 3 sacks in
> > Seymour's absence. So, a drop-off, sure,
> > but not that much of one, and Seymour's
> > return shouldn't make that big of a diff
> > in the performance of the Pats' 'D'.
>
> Why wouldn't the return of a team's best defensive player make a big
> difference? I like Jarvis Green and all, but he's not even the undisputed
> starter when Seymour's been out. Mike Wright splits snaps with him (when
> Wright is healthy), mostly because Wright is more stout against the run.
> Green can best be classified as a pass-rushing specialist, and he does a
> great job of it. Out of the base defense, there are deficiencies in his
> game. As for Seymour, well, there aren't any deficiencies in his game. The
> dropoff is substantial in the base D.
>
> And not only that, but the pass-rushing alignment has taken a hit with
> Seymour's absence. Yeah, Green does a great job in the middle of it, but
> they get their best pressure with two defensive tackles, not one. They've
> been using Wilfork or Warren as the second guy, but neither of them has been
> able to generate much pressure out of that alignment. In the last game,
> they were actually using Adalius Thomas there. They need Seymour back.

Julius Jones + Marion Barber got 100
rushing yards on a mere 15 carries. One
wonders -if- the Cowboys, falling behind
14-0, have remedied that 'slow startup'
problem (the Vikings game offers hope),
and if so, what impact that would have
on a rematch, and on their willingness
to run the ball much more as a key as-
pect of their offensive attack.

All the improvements in Cowboys per-
sonnel (that's Glenn + Henry + Tank
Williams), in my estimation, will have
a much more substantial impact on a
rematch than will Seymour.

Time of Possession -- Patriots had the
ball 38:25, the Cowboys 21:45. That's
got to be closer, or else the Cowboys
won't be able to compete against this
team.

So, getting off to a faster start, having
their 2nd corner & leading interceptor,
improvement on the defensive line,
having their best deep threat receiver,
all that bodes well for the Cowboys
should their be a rematch. Also, the
Cowboys ability to remedy their 3rd
down penalty problems, that's got to
be fixed, as well as an uptick in pres-
sure on Brady throughout the game
rather than for just one half.

An unspoken factor, one must wonder
if any holding back occurred, if either
team was holding something in reserve
in anticipation of a rematch, and -if- the
Cowboys were doing so. -If- so, based
either on the short week -or- an emotional
letdown after the come-from-behind Bills
game -or- lack of personnel -or- coaching
genius, knowing full well that a regular
season game pales in significance when
compared to the Super Bowl, knowing
full well that Belichick is setting out to
wipe out opponents in an effort to redeem
himself/the Patriots for his 'cheating', then
one might put much less stock in the -2-
dominant quarters the Patriots had, and
much more stock in the -2- competitive
quarters the Cowboys had in that game.

Or not. I'd say chances are very high that
the Cowboys will be much better in a
rematch than they were in that first game,
-but- the Patriots, riding a record-high
one-sided games wave, I really don't
see much room for improvement.

Consider, what -if- your 3 best receivers,
Moss-Welker-Stallworth, instead con-
sisted of Welker-Stallworth-Hurd? Yikes,
that would have to hurt. That's, in essence,
what the Cowboys have with Glenn-T.O.-
Crayton replaced by T.O.-Crayton-Hurd.
Having Glenn back may make as dramatic
an impact on the Cowboys already potent
passing game as Moss made on Brady's.

Or not. Maybe we'll see, -if- the Patriots
make it back to the -big- game, as the odds
are much greater that the Cowboys will
be there than are the odds that the Patriots
will be able to overcome their Peyton
Manning/Colts challenge.

---

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$12185$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "MZ" wrote in message
> @giganews.com...
>>
>> "observer" wrote in message
>> $0$12164$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>> >
>> > "Dave St.Onge" wrote in message
>> > @corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> Although you must remember that the Pats were missing arguably their
>> >> two
>> >> best defensive players: Seymour and Harrison...
>> >
>> > Rodney Harrison played -- had 4 tackles,
>> > 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble, per the NFL
>> > Stats page:
>> > http://tinyurl.com/2352tw
>> >
>> > As for Seymour, yes, a great player, -but-
>> > the Patriots are renowned for finding subs
>> > that perform admirably, and Jarvis Green,
>> > Seymour's replacement, is no exception,
>> > having had 18 tackles -and- 3 sacks in
>> > Seymour's absence. So, a drop-off, sure,
>> > but not that much of one, and Seymour's
>> > return shouldn't make that big of a diff
>> > in the performance of the Pats' 'D'.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the return of a team's best defensive player make a big
>> difference? I like Jarvis Green and all, but he's not even the
>> undisputed
>> starter when Seymour's been out. Mike Wright splits snaps with him (when
>> Wright is healthy), mostly because Wright is more stout against the run.
>> Green can best be classified as a pass-rushing specialist, and he does a
>> great job of it. Out of the base defense, there are deficiencies in his
>> game. As for Seymour, well, there aren't any deficiencies in his game.
>> The
>> dropoff is substantial in the base D.
>>
>> And not only that, but the pass-rushing alignment has taken a hit with
>> Seymour's absence. Yeah, Green does a great job in the middle of it, but
>> they get their best pressure with two defensive tackles, not one.
>> They've
>> been using Wilfork or Warren as the second guy, but neither of them has
>> been
>> able to generate much pressure out of that alignment. In the last game,
>> they were actually using Adalius Thomas there. They need Seymour back.
>
> Julius Jones + Marion Barber got 100
> rushing yards on a mere 15 carries. One
> wonders -if- the Cowboys, falling behind
> 14-0, have remedied that 'slow startup'
> problem (the Vikings game offers hope),
> and if so, what impact that would have
> on a rematch, and on their willingness
> to run the ball much more as a key as-
> pect of their offensive attack.

The two are inseparable. Part of the reason the Cowboys did well rushing is
because they were facing either a big nickel or pass-rush sets with two
DLmen on the field. If it was a tight field-position kind of game, then I'm
sure both teams would have employed a different defensive strategy. Wade
claimed that he was trying to stop the run first. BB had the opposite
strategy to stop Dallas' high octane offense -- he conceded the run to try
to take Witten out of the game.

> All the improvements in Cowboys per-
> sonnel (that's Glenn + Henry + Tank
> Williams), in my estimation, will have
> a much more substantial impact on a
> rematch than will Seymour.

That's possible. But this statement seems to contradict your other one.
You point to the rushing yards the Cowboys put up, and note that it's
possible that it could be the key to their success in a rematch. But then
you're discounting the effect of the Pats adding a guy who's absolutely key
to them stopping the run.

>
> Time of Possession -- Patriots had the
> ball 38:25, the Cowboys 21:45. That's
> got to be closer, or else the Cowboys
> won't be able to compete against this
> team.
>
> So, getting off to a faster start, having
> their 2nd corner & leading interceptor,
> improvement on the defensive line,
> having their best deep threat receiver,
> all that bodes well for the Cowboys
> should their be a rematch. Also, the
> Cowboys ability to remedy their 3rd
> down penalty problems, that's got to
> be fixed, as well as an uptick in pres-
> sure on Brady throughout the game
> rather than for just one half.
>
> An unspoken factor, one must wonder
> if any holding back occurred, if either
> team was holding something in reserve
> in anticipation of a rematch, and -if- the
> Cowboys were doing so. -If- so, based
> either on the short week -or- an emotional
> letdown after the come-from-behind Bills
> game -or- lack of personnel -or- coaching
> genius, knowing full well that a regular
> season game pales in significance when
> compared to the Super Bowl, knowing
> full well that Belichick is setting out to
> wipe out opponents in an effort to redeem
> himself/the Patriots for his 'cheating', then
> one might put much less stock in the -2-
> dominant quarters the Patriots had, and
> much more stock in the -2- competitive
> quarters the Cowboys had in that game.

That's a reach. I don't think teams "hold back" in a match of undefeated
teams. Also, I don't see why there would be an emotional letdown after
beating the Bills in dramatic fashion. And do you really think Belichick is
only trying to "wipe out" opponents because of the cheating thing? I think
all teams try to "wipe out" opponents. Especially in the Super Bowl. And
if what you say is true, and that he's trying extra hard (or some such
nonsense) in these regular season games, then why would he stop that
strategy in the Super Bowl?

> Or not. I'd say chances are very high that
> the Cowboys will be much better in a
> rematch than they were in that first game,
> -but- the Patriots, riding a record-high
> one-sided games wave, I really don't
> see much room for improvement.
>
> Consider, what -if- your 3 best receivers,
> Moss-Welker-Stallworth, instead con-
> sisted of Welker-Stallworth-Hurd? Yikes,
> that would have to hurt. That's, in essence,
> what the Cowboys have with Glenn-T.O.-
> Crayton replaced by T.O.-Crayton-Hurd.
> Having Glenn back may make as dramatic
> an impact on the Cowboys already potent
> passing game as Moss made on Brady's.

So you're saying that Glenn is better than TO? I don't know why your
analogy has Brady losing his best receiver and Romo losing his second best
receiver.

And yes, I think if the Pats were without Moss in that game they would have
won it. I also think that they would have still won if the Pats were
without their 2nd CB too, but that's probably because the Pats third CB is
very good and they won a super bowl with him starting.

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote in message
@giganews.com...
>
> "observer" wrote in message
> $0$12185$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> >
> > "MZ" wrote in message
> > @giganews.com...
> >>
> >> "observer" wrote in message
> >> $0$12164$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Dave St.Onge" wrote in message
> >> > @corp.supernews.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> Although you must remember that the Pats were missing arguably their
> >> >> two
> >> >> best defensive players: Seymour and Harrison...
> >> >
> >> > Rodney Harrison played -- had 4 tackles,
> >> > 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble, per the NFL
> >> > Stats page:
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/2352tw
> >> >
> >> > As for Seymour, yes, a great player, -but-
> >> > the Patriots are renowned for finding subs
> >> > that perform admirably, and Jarvis Green,
> >> > Seymour's replacement, is no exception,
> >> > having had 18 tackles -and- 3 sacks in
> >> > Seymour's absence. So, a drop-off, sure,
> >> > but not that much of one, and Seymour's
> >> > return shouldn't make that big of a diff
> >> > in the performance of the Pats' 'D'.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't the return of a team's best defensive player make a big
> >> difference? I like Jarvis Green and all, but he's not even the
> >> undisputed
> >> starter when Seymour's been out. Mike Wright splits snaps with him (when
> >> Wright is healthy), mostly because Wright is more stout against the run.
> >> Green can best be classified as a pass-rushing specialist, and he does a
> >> great job of it. Out of the base defense, there are deficiencies in his
> >> game. As for Seymour, well, there aren't any deficiencies in his game.
> >> The
> >> dropoff is substantial in the base D.
> >>
> >> And not only that, but the pass-rushing alignment has taken a hit with
> >> Seymour's absence. Yeah, Green does a great job in the middle of it, but
> >> they get their best pressure with two defensive tackles, not one.
> >> They've
> >> been using Wilfork or Warren as the second guy, but neither of them has
> >> been
> >> able to generate much pressure out of that alignment. In the last game,
> >> they were actually using Adalius Thomas there. They need Seymour back.
> >
> > Julius Jones + Marion Barber got 100
> > rushing yards on a mere 15 carries. One
> > wonders -if- the Cowboys, falling behind
> > 14-0, have remedied that 'slow startup'
> > problem (the Vikings game offers hope),
> > and if so, what impact that would have
> > on a rematch, and on their willingness
> > to run the ball much more as a key as-
> > pect of their offensive attack.
>
> The two are inseparable. Part of the reason the Cowboys did well rushing is
> because they were facing either a big nickel or pass-rush sets with two
> DLmen on the field. If it was a tight field-position kind of game, then I'm
> sure both teams would have employed a different defensive strategy. Wade
> claimed that he was trying to stop the run first. BB had the opposite
> strategy to stop Dallas' high octane offense -- he conceded the run to try
> to take Witten out of the game.

The Cowboys didn't do well rushing, because
they got off to a 14 point deficit. Against the
2nd-ranked rush defense in the league (the
Vikings) they ran 28 times, and only had
success in the 4th quarter, when ahead. That
was almost twice the number of runs they
had versus the Patriots, having all-but turned
off their run game due to falling so far behind
so early.

>
>
> > All the improvements in Cowboys per-
> > sonnel (that's Glenn + Henry + Tank
> > Williams), in my estimation, will have
> > a much more substantial impact on a
> > rematch than will Seymour.
>
> That's possible. But this statement seems to contradict your other one.
> You point to the rushing yards the Cowboys put up, and note that it's
> possible that it could be the key to their success in a rematch. But then
> you're discounting the effect of the Pats adding a guy who's absolutely key
> to them stopping the run.

The keys in a rematch -- matching whatever
the Patriots do on offense, from the get go,
due to an improved defense and to an improved
offense. I think you'll agree that the Cowboys,
as it now stands, will be significantly improved
in personnel relative to that first game, on both
sides of the ball. The Patriots defensive im-
provement from Seymour, I don't see that as
having nearly as significant an impact as you
seem to think it will, due both to the way the
games have unfolded to-date, and the players
present in his absence.

>
> >
> > Time of Possession -- Patriots had the
> > ball 38:25, the Cowboys 21:45. That's
> > got to be closer, or else the Cowboys
> > won't be able to compete against this
> > team.
> >
> > So, getting off to a faster start, having
> > their 2nd corner & leading interceptor,
> > improvement on the defensive line,
> > having their best deep threat receiver,
> > all that bodes well for the Cowboys
> > should their be a rematch. Also, the
> > Cowboys ability to remedy their 3rd
> > down penalty problems, that's got to
> > be fixed, as well as an uptick in pres-
> > sure on Brady throughout the game
> > rather than for just one half.
> >
> > An unspoken factor, one must wonder
> > if any holding back occurred, if either
> > team was holding something in reserve
> > in anticipation of a rematch, and -if- the
> > Cowboys were doing so. -If- so, based
> > either on the short week -or- an emotional
> > letdown after the come-from-behind Bills
> > game -or- lack of personnel -or- coaching
> > genius, knowing full well that a regular
> > season game pales in significance when
> > compared to the Super Bowl, knowing
> > full well that Belichick is setting out to
> > wipe out opponents in an effort to redeem
> > himself/the Patriots for his 'cheating', then
> > one might put much less stock in the -2-
> > dominant quarters the Patriots had, and
> > much more stock in the -2- competitive
> > quarters the Cowboys had in that game.
>
> That's a reach. I don't think teams "hold back" in a match of undefeated
> teams. Also, I don't see why there would be an emotional letdown after
> beating the Bills in dramatic fashion. And do you really think Belichick is
> only trying to "wipe out" opponents because of the cheating thing? I think
> all teams try to "wipe out" opponents. Especially in the Super Bowl. And
> if what you say is true, and that he's trying extra hard (or some such
> nonsense) in these regular season games, then why would he stop that
> strategy in the Super Bowl?

The 'wipe out' strategy has been criticized,
strongly, as unsportsmanlike, by some, and
as sick, by others, having Brady in the game
after the game has been decided in a one-
sided manner.

> > Or not. I'd say chances are very high that
> > the Cowboys will be much better in a
> > rematch than they were in that first game,
> > -but- the Patriots, riding a record-high
> > one-sided games wave, I really don't
> > see much room for improvement.
> >
> > Consider, what -if- your 3 best receivers,
> > Moss-Welker-Stallworth, instead con-
> > sisted of Welker-Stallworth-Hurd? Yikes,
> > that would have to hurt. That's, in essence,
> > what the Cowboys have with Glenn-T.O.-
> > Crayton replaced by T.O.-Crayton-Hurd.
> > Having Glenn back may make as dramatic
> > an impact on the Cowboys already potent
> > passing game as Moss made on Brady's.
>
> So you're saying that Glenn is better than TO? I don't know why your
> analogy has Brady losing his best receiver and Romo losing his second best
> receiver.

Glenn is the Cowboys fastest receiver, Moss
is the Patriots fastest receiver, hence the
comparison.

>
> And yes, I think if the Pats were without Moss in that game they would have
> won it. I also think that they would have still won if the Pats were
> without their 2nd CB too, but that's probably because the Pats third CB is
> very good and they won a super bowl with him starting.

The point was/is that the Cowboys, in
a rematch, will be in much better shape
than they were against the Patriots, on
the upswing, peaking at the 'right' time,
-if- they're not suffering from injuries.

As for the Patriots, Seymour won't be
as big of a difference on a team already
peaking, as the combination of players
the Patriots are using matches what Sey-
mour provides, in pass-rush if not in
rush-defense. Rush-defense? The Patriots
have benefitted by run-ups in one-sided
games to such an extent that rush-defense
has been inconsequential to-date.

---

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote in message
@giganews.com...
>
> "observer" wrote in message
> $0$12164$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> >
> > "MZ" wrote in message
> > @giganews.com...
> >>
> >> "observer" wrote ...
> >> >
> >> > Julius Jones + Marion Barber got 100
> >> > rushing yards on a mere 15 carries. One
> >> > wonders -if- the Cowboys, falling behind
> >> > 14-0, have remedied that 'slow startup'
> >> > problem (the Vikings game offers hope),
> >> > and if so, what impact that would have
> >> > on a rematch, and on their willingness
> >> > to run the ball much more as a key as-
> >> > pect of their offensive attack.
> >>
> >> The two are inseparable. Part of the reason the Cowboys did well rushing
> >> is
> >> because they were facing either a big nickel or pass-rush sets with two
> >> DLmen on the field. If it was a tight field-position kind of game, then
> >> I'm
> >> sure both teams would have employed a different defensive strategy. Wade
> >> claimed that he was trying to stop the run first. BB had the opposite
> >> strategy to stop Dallas' high octane offense -- he conceded the run to
> >> try
> >> to take Witten out of the game.
> >
> > The Cowboys didn't do well rushing, because
> > they got off to a 14 point deficit. Against the
> > 2nd-ranked rush defense in the league (the
> > Vikings) they ran 28 times, and only had
> > success in the 4th quarter, when ahead. That
> > was almost twice the number of runs they
> > had versus the Patriots, having all-but turned
> > off their run game due to falling so far behind
> > so early.
>
> Your original assumption was that since Jones/Barber had a high YPC in that
> game, that they would have also had a high YPC in a close game.

No, I never mentioned a high YPC in
a close game. You are simply making
assumptions, and are arguing against
statements not made.

> But you
> can't make the assumption that the type of defense the Pats would put out on
> the field would be the same if the score was different. Moreover, you keep
> minimizing the impact of Seymour while at the same time suggesting that
> Jones/Barber could maintain a high YPC because they did in the last game
> (without Seymour).

No statements were made regarding a
high YPC game. In fact, I clearly stated
that the Cowboys all-but turned off their
run game due to falling behind 14-0.

> You do agree that a healthy Seymour will improve the
> Pats run defense, right?

What you seem to be ignoring is that with
early big leads, the Pats' interest is in stop-
ping the pass, not the run. As for Seymour
playing the run better, it's not an issue until
or unless an opponent is able to prevent the
Pats from running up big leads. Even then,
it pales in significance relative to a teams'
ability to pass and stop the pass, both areas
the Cowboys are likely to be much-improved
in -if- a rematch occurs.

> >> > All the improvements in Cowboys per-
> >> > sonnel (that's Glenn + Henry + Tank
> >> > Williams), in my estimation, will have
> >> > a much more substantial impact on a
> >> > rematch than will Seymour.
> >>
> >> That's possible. But this statement seems to contradict your other one.
> >> You point to the rushing yards the Cowboys put up, and note that it's
> >> possible that it could be the key to their success in a rematch. But
> >> then
> >> you're discounting the effect of the Pats adding a guy who's absolutely
> >> key
> >> to them stopping the run.
> >
> > The keys in a rematch -- matching whatever
> > the Patriots do on offense, from the get go,
> > due to an improved defense and to an improved
> > offense. I think you'll agree that the Cowboys,
> > as it now stands, will be significantly improved
> > in personnel relative to that first game, on both
> > sides of the ball. The Patriots defensive im-
> > provement from Seymour, I don't see that as
> > having nearly as significant an impact as you
> > seem to think it will, due both to the way the
> > games have unfolded to-date, and the players
> > present in his absence.
>
> Henry and Glenn will be improvements, even though I don't think their
> replacements were the reason for the loss. Johnson is a bit of a question
> mark, of course, but we'll know soon enough. But I'm not sure what you're
> saying about Seymour. First, the "way things have unfolded to date" doesn't
> seem to apply since your entire point is that things will unfold differently
> in a rematch. No early deficits, right? Second, I again point to you that
> Jarvis Green can't hold Seymour's jock in the base defense, and Vince
> Wilfork/Ty Warren can't hold Seymour's jock in the pass-rushing alignment.
> The Pats have missed him on both fronts.

Seymour is great, but what you're missing
in understanding is that the drop-off with
Jarvis Green is nowhere near the drop-off
in talent the Cowboys are experiencing
with Terry Glenn out and Jason Ferguson
out and Jacques Reeves as 2nd-corner, all
expected to be remedied soon, with the
return of Glenn and the return of the Cow-
boys 2nd corner Henry and the presence
of Tank Williams.

Due to the insubstantial drop-off in Sey-
mour's absence, the uptick in his return
won't be anywhere near the improvement
the Cowboys will get from their triad of
soon-to-be returning/new starters.

---
October 17, 2007

Belichick plugs holes with surplus of talent
http://tinyurl.com/yv3urd
---

Excerpt:

....

New England began the season with All-Pro
defensive lineman Richard Seymour on the
shelf, and super-sub Jarvis Green in his place.

It would seem that nothing has changed - the
Pats are allowing 78 yards rushing per game,
the fifth-lowest average in the NFL. But Green
is unlike most backup players since he is skilled
enough to be a starter on nearly every other team
in the league, and over his six seasons in New
England, he has been called upon at various
times to fill starting roles.

....

--- end excerpt ---

>
>
> >> That's a reach. I don't think teams "hold back" in a match of undefeated
> >> teams. Also, I don't see why there would be an emotional letdown after
> >> beating the Bills in dramatic fashion. And do you really think Belichick
> >> is
> >> only trying to "wipe out" opponents because of the cheating thing? I
> >> think
> >> all teams try to "wipe out" opponents. Especially in the Super Bowl.
> >> And
> >> if what you say is true, and that he's trying extra hard (or some such
> >> nonsense) in these regular season games, then why would he stop that
> >> strategy in the Super Bowl?
> >
> > The 'wipe out' strategy has been criticized,
> > strongly, as unsportsmanlike, by some, and
> > as sick, by others, having Brady in the game
> > after the game has been decided in a one-
> > sided manner.
>
> It's been criticized mostly by people with an anti-Pats agenda.
> Easterbrook, for one (who, by the way, received flack from a colleague for
> it).
>
> The bottom line is that there's no evidence that Belichick is trying to
> "wipe out" opponents when he is, in fact, putting backups into the game.
> The late TD against the Cowboys was from successive runs by the team's
> #5 RB (yes, there are 4 guys ahead of Kyle Eckel on the depth chart
> -- Eckel's a special teamer). And what happened against Miami was
> a matter of putting the (horrible) backup QB in too soon. Clearly
> Belichick wasn't trying to run up the score -- otherwise he would never
> have put Cassel in to begin with. And starting RB Laurence Maroney
> didn't have a single run in the second half.
>
> And he wasn't trying to "wipe out" Miami defensively either, since by the
> beginning of halftime the backup defensive players were in. The backup NT
> (who hardly ever gets playing time) started the half; the 3rd and 4th safety
> on the depth chart were in for almost every play in the second half; and the
> backup defensive ends and backup linebacker were on the field for most of
> the 4th quarter. If Belichick wanted to "wipe out" Miami, the Pats easily
> would have scored 70 points in that game, having already scored 42 in the
> first half. Instead, they only scored 7 points in the entire second half.
> That doesn't qualify as "wiping out" a team.
>
>
> >> > Or not. I'd say chances are very high that
> >> > the Cowboys will be much better in a
> >> > rematch than they were in that first game,
> >> > -but- the Patriots, riding a record-high
> >> > one-sided games wave, I really don't
> >> > see much room for improvement.
> >> >
> >> > Consider, what -if- your 3 best receivers,
> >> > Moss-Welker-Stallworth, instead con-
> >> > sisted of Welker-Stallworth-Hurd? Yikes,
> >> > that would have to hurt. That's, in essence,
> >> > what the Cowboys have with Glenn-T.O.-
> >> > Crayton replaced by T.O.-Crayton-Hurd.
> >> > Having Glenn back may make as dramatic
> >> > an impact on the Cowboys already potent
> >> > passing game as Moss made on Brady's.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that Glenn is better than TO? I don't know why your
> >> analogy has Brady losing his best receiver and Romo losing his second
> >> best
> >> receiver.
> >
> > Glenn is the Cowboys fastest receiver, Moss
> > is the Patriots fastest receiver, hence the
> > comparison.
>
> Um...ok. Why not refer to best receiver instead? That would make more
> sense if you're trying to create an analogy about what Romo didn't have
> available to him. If anything Moss->TO and Stallworth->Glenn. [Stallworth
> isn't exactly slow you know...]
>
>
> >> And yes, I think if the Pats were without Moss in that game they would
> >> have
> >> won it. I also think that they would have still won if the Pats were
> >> without their 2nd CB too, but that's probably because the Pats third CB
> >> is
> >> very good and they won a super bowl with him starting.
> >
> > The point was/is that the Cowboys, in
> > a rematch, will be in much better shape
> > than they were against the Patriots, on
> > the upswing, peaking at the 'right' time,
> > -if- they're not suffering from injuries.
> >
> > As for the Patriots, Seymour won't be
> > as big of a difference on a team already
> > peaking, as the combination of players
> > the Patriots are using matches what Sey-
> > mour provides, in pass-rush if not in
> > rush-defense. Rush-defense? The Patriots
> > have benefitted by run-ups in one-sided
> > games to such an extent that rush-defense
> > has been inconsequential to-date.
>
> "Peaking" is a fallacy. When did the Colts "peak" last year?

Prior to the Cowboys' game, and with the return
of Sanders, late in the season.

---

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$12164$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "MZ" wrote in message
> @giganews.com...
>>
>> "observer" wrote in message
>> > Julius Jones + Marion Barber got 100
>> > rushing yards on a mere 15 carries. One
>> > wonders -if- the Cowboys, falling behind
>> > 14-0, have remedied that 'slow startup'
>> > problem (the Vikings game offers hope),
>> > and if so, what impact that would have
>> > on a rematch, and on their willingness
>> > to run the ball much more as a key as-
>> > pect of their offensive attack.
>>
>> The two are inseparable. Part of the reason the Cowboys did well rushing
>> is
>> because they were facing either a big nickel or pass-rush sets with two
>> DLmen on the field. If it was a tight field-position kind of game, then
>> I'm
>> sure both teams would have employed a different defensive strategy. Wade
>> claimed that he was trying to stop the run first. BB had the opposite
>> strategy to stop Dallas' high octane offense -- he conceded the run to
>> try
>> to take Witten out of the game.
>
> The Cowboys didn't do well rushing, because
> they got off to a 14 point deficit. Against the
> 2nd-ranked rush defense in the league (the
> Vikings) they ran 28 times, and only had
> success in the 4th quarter, when ahead. That
> was almost twice the number of runs they
> had versus the Patriots, having all-but turned
> off their run game due to falling so far behind
> so early.

Your original assumption was that since Jones/Barber had a high YPC in that
game, that they would have also had a high YPC in a close game. But you
can't make the assumption that the type of defense the Pats would put out on
the field would be the same if the score was different. Moreover, you keep
minimizing the impact of Seymour while at the same time suggesting that
Jones/Barber could maintain a high YPC because they did in the last game
(without Seymour). You do agree that a healthy Seymour will improve the
Pats run defense, right?

>> > All the improvements in Cowboys per-
>> > sonnel (that's Glenn + Henry + Tank
>> > Williams), in my estimation, will have
>> > a much more substantial impact on a
>> > rematch than will Seymour.
>>
>> That's possible. But this statement seems to contradict your other one.
>> You point to the rushing yards the Cowboys put up, and note that it's
>> possible that it could be the key to their success in a rematch. But
>> then
>> you're discounting the effect of the Pats adding a guy who's absolutely
>> key
>> to them stopping the run.
>
> The keys in a rematch -- matching whatever
> the Patriots do on offense, from the get go,
> due to an improved defense and to an improved
> offense. I think you'll agree that the Cowboys,
> as it now stands, will be significantly improved
> in personnel relative to that first game, on both
> sides of the ball. The Patriots defensive im-
> provement from Seymour, I don't see that as
> having nearly as significant an impact as you
> seem to think it will, due both to the way the
> games have unfolded to-date, and the players
> present in his absence.

Henry and Glenn will be improvements, even though I don't think their
replacements were the reason for the loss. Johnson is a bit of a question
mark, of course, but we'll know soon enough. But I'm not sure what you're
saying about Seymour. First, the "way things have unfolded to date" doesn't
seem to apply since your entire point is that things will unfold differently
in a rematch. No early deficits, right? Second, I again point to you that
Jarvis Green can't hold Seymour's jock in the base defense, and Vince
Wilfork/Ty Warren can't hold Seymour's jock in the pass-rushing alignment.
The Pats have missed him on both fronts.

>> That's a reach. I don't think teams "hold back" in a match of undefeated
>> teams. Also, I don't see why there would be an emotional letdown after
>> beating the Bills in dramatic fashion. And do you really think Belichick
>> is
>> only trying to "wipe out" opponents because of the cheating thing? I
>> think
>> all teams try to "wipe out" opponents. Especially in the Super Bowl.
>> And
>> if what you say is true, and that he's trying extra hard (or some such
>> nonsense) in these regular season games, then why would he stop that
>> strategy in the Super Bowl?
>
> The 'wipe out' strategy has been criticized,
> strongly, as unsportsmanlike, by some, and
> as sick, by others, having Brady in the game
> after the game has been decided in a one-
> sided manner.

It's been criticized mostly by people with an anti-Pats agenda.
Easterbrook, for one (who, by the way, received flack from a colleague for
it).

The bottom line is that there's no evidence that Belichick is trying to
"wipe out" opponents when he is, in fact, putting backups into the game.
The late TD against the Cowboys was from successive runs by the team's #5 RB
(yes, there are 4 guys ahead of Kyle Eckel on the depth chart -- Eckel's a
special teamer). And what happened against Miami was a matter of putting
the (horrible) backup QB in too soon. Clearly Belichick wasn't trying to
run up the score -- otherwise he would never have put Cassel in to begin
with. And starting RB Laurence Maroney didn't have a single run in the
second half.

And he wasn't trying to "wipe out" Miami defensively either, since by the
beginning of halftime the backup defensive players were in. The backup NT
(who hardly ever gets playing time) started the half; the 3rd and 4th safety
on the depth chart were in for almost every play in the second half; and the
backup defensive ends and backup linebacker were on the field for most of
the 4th quarter. If Belichick wanted to "wipe out" Miami, the Pats easily
would have scored 70 points in that game, having already scored 42 in the
first half. Instead, they only scored 7 points in the entire second half.
That doesn't qualify as "wiping out" a team.

>> > Or not. I'd say chances are very high that
>> > the Cowboys will be much better in a
>> > rematch than they were in that first game,
>> > -but- the Patriots, riding a record-high
>> > one-sided games wave, I really don't
>> > see much room for improvement.
>> >
>> > Consider, what -if- your 3 best receivers,
>> > Moss-Welker-Stallworth, instead con-
>> > sisted of Welker-Stallworth-Hurd? Yikes,
>> > that would have to hurt. That's, in essence,
>> > what the Cowboys have with Glenn-T.O.-
>> > Crayton replaced by T.O.-Crayton-Hurd.
>> > Having Glenn back may make as dramatic
>> > an impact on the Cowboys already potent
>> > passing game as Moss made on Brady's.
>>
>> So you're saying that Glenn is better than TO? I don't know why your
>> analogy has Brady losing his best receiver and Romo losing his second
>> best
>> receiver.
>
> Glenn is the Cowboys fastest receiver, Moss
> is the Patriots fastest receiver, hence the
> comparison.

Um...ok. Why not refer to best receiver instead? That would make more
sense if you're trying to create an analogy about what Romo didn't have
available to him. If anything Moss->TO and Stallworth->Glenn. [Stallworth
isn't exactly slow you know...]

>> And yes, I think if the Pats were without Moss in that game they would
>> have
>> won it. I also think that they would have still won if the Pats were
>> without their 2nd CB too, but that's probably because the Pats third CB
>> is
>> very good and they won a super bowl with him starting.
>
> The point was/is that the Cowboys, in
> a rematch, will be in much better shape
> than they were against the Patriots, on
> the upswing, peaking at the 'right' time,
> -if- they're not suffering from injuries.
>
> As for the Patriots, Seymour won't be
> as big of a difference on a team already
> peaking, as the combination of players
> the Patriots are using matches what Sey-
> mour provides, in pass-rush if not in
> rush-defense. Rush-defense? The Patriots
> have benefitted by run-ups in one-sided
> games to such an extent that rush-defense
> has been inconsequential to-date.

"Peaking" is a fallacy. When did the Colts "peak" last year?

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>
> "observer" wrote ...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Due to the insubstantial drop-off in Sey-
> > mour's absence, the uptick in his return
> > won't be anywhere near the improvement
> > the Cowboys will get from their triad of
> > soon-to-be returning/new starters.
>
> And that, with all due respect, is just plain wrong. I thought my
> explanation was pretty clear about that. Yeah, the Pats are playing great
> football right now, but it could always be better. And according to
> Crayton, it could be much better defensively. What bigger improvement
> can this defense make other than replacing the defense's worst starter
> with a player who's better than everyone else on the defense? I don't see
> how any rational person can marginalize the return of a player who some
> call the best defensive lineman in football. Your argument thus far has
> been to the tune of "well Green and Wright aren't so bad." That's true.
> They're not so bad. But they're also not in the same league as Richard
> Seymour.
>
> Frankly, the upgrade from Green to Seymour in the base D, and Wilfork/
> Warren to Seymour in the pass rushing alignment, is a much greater
> upgrade than Anthony Henry over Jacques Reeves.

I differ with your opinion on that, both
on the amount of difference in the Cowboys
triad of returning/new players and on the
amount of improvement you expect with
Seymour's return, but I acknowledge that
you're in the majority of popular opinion
regarding the Patriots' perceived superior-
ity status against all-non-Colts teams as of
this point in the season.

Keep in mind, however, that the Patriots
have only played one team with more
wins than losses, a team suffering much
more (in my opinion) from injuries than
were the Patriots. Newman, playing oppo-
site his normal corner spot, Reeves, play-
ing starting corner in Newman's spot rather
than 3rd corner, Glenn out, Jason Ferguson
gone, short week to prepare.

In any case, we of course can't know who
would be playing in a rematch (i.e., the
health of both teams) but -if- the Cowboys
and Patriots have good luck on the injury
scene, I am of the minority view that as an
underdog, the Cowboys will have a genuine
chance at an upset -if- a rematch were to
occur.

>
> [...]

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$12182$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "MZ" wrote in message
> @giganews.com...
>>
>> "observer" wrote in message
>> $0$12164$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>> >
>> > "MZ" wrote in message
>> > @giganews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "observer" wrote ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Julius Jones + Marion Barber got 100
>> >> > rushing yards on a mere 15 carries. One
>> >> > wonders -if- the Cowboys, falling behind
>> >> > 14-0, have remedied that 'slow startup'
>> >> > problem (the Vikings game offers hope),
>> >> > and if so, what impact that would have
>> >> > on a rematch, and on their willingness
>> >> > to run the ball much more as a key as-
>> >> > pect of their offensive attack.
>> >>
>> >> The two are inseparable. Part of the reason the Cowboys did well
>> >> rushing
>> >> is
>> >> because they were facing either a big nickel or pass-rush sets with
>> >> two
>> >> DLmen on the field. If it was a tight field-position kind of game,
>> >> then
>> >> I'm
>> >> sure both teams would have employed a different defensive strategy.
>> >> Wade
>> >> claimed that he was trying to stop the run first. BB had the opposite
>> >> strategy to stop Dallas' high octane offense -- he conceded the run to
>> >> try
>> >> to take Witten out of the game.
>> >
>> > The Cowboys didn't do well rushing, because
>> > they got off to a 14 point deficit. Against the
>> > 2nd-ranked rush defense in the league (the
>> > Vikings) they ran 28 times, and only had
>> > success in the 4th quarter, when ahead. That
>> > was almost twice the number of runs they
>> > had versus the Patriots, having all-but turned
>> > off their run game due to falling so far behind
>> > so early.
>>
>> Your original assumption was that since Jones/Barber had a high YPC in
>> that
>> game, that they would have also had a high YPC in a close game.
>
> No, I never mentioned a high YPC in
> a close game. You are simply making
> assumptions, and are arguing against
> statements not made.
>
>> But you
>> can't make the assumption that the type of defense the Pats would put out
>> on
>> the field would be the same if the score was different. Moreover, you
>> keep
>> minimizing the impact of Seymour while at the same time suggesting that
>> Jones/Barber could maintain a high YPC because they did in the last game
>> (without Seymour).
>
> No statements were made regarding a
> high YPC game. In fact, I clearly stated
> that the Cowboys all-but turned off their
> run game due to falling behind 14-0.

Then what exactly was the point of saying "Julius Jones + Marion Barber got
100 rushing yards on a mere 15 carries."?

>> You do agree that a healthy Seymour will improve the
>> Pats run defense, right?
>
> What you seem to be ignoring is that with
> early big leads, the Pats' interest is in stop-
> ping the pass, not the run. As for Seymour
> playing the run better, it's not an issue until
> or unless an opponent is able to prevent the
> Pats from running up big leads. Even then,
> it pales in significance relative to a teams'
> ability to pass and stop the pass, both areas
> the Cowboys are likely to be much-improved
> in -if- a rematch occurs.

But much of your argument relies on the notion that the Cowboys will keep
the game closer and will not start out with a large deficit. You said
"...what impact that would have on a rematch, and on their willingness to
run the ball much more as a key aspect of their offensive attack." So,
given that scenario, I think the Pats run D is relevant.

>> Henry and Glenn will be improvements, even though I don't think their
>> replacements were the reason for the loss. Johnson is a bit of a
>> question
>> mark, of course, but we'll know soon enough. But I'm not sure what
>> you're
>> saying about Seymour. First, the "way things have unfolded to date"
>> doesn't
>> seem to apply since your entire point is that things will unfold
>> differently
>> in a rematch. No early deficits, right? Second, I again point to you
>> that
>> Jarvis Green can't hold Seymour's jock in the base defense, and Vince
>> Wilfork/Ty Warren can't hold Seymour's jock in the pass-rushing
>> alignment.
>> The Pats have missed him on both fronts.
>
> Seymour is great, but what you're missing
> in understanding is that the drop-off with
> Jarvis Green is nowhere near the drop-off
> in talent the Cowboys are experiencing
> with Terry Glenn out and Jason Ferguson
> out and Jacques Reeves as 2nd-corner, all
> expected to be remedied soon, with the
> return of Glenn and the return of the Cow-
> boys 2nd corner Henry and the presence
> of Tank Williams.
>
> Due to the insubstantial drop-off in Sey-
> mour's absence, the uptick in his return
> won't be anywhere near the improvement
> the Cowboys will get from their triad of
> soon-to-be returning/new starters.

And that, with all due respect, is just plain wrong. I thought my
explanation was pretty clear about that. Yeah, the Pats are playing great
football right now, but it could always be better. And according to
Crayton, it could be much better defensively. What bigger improvement can
this defense make other than replacing the defense's worst starter with a
player who's better than everyone else on the defense? I don't see how any
rational person can marginalize the return of a player who some call the
best defensive lineman in football. Your argument thus far has been to the
tune of "well Green and Wright aren't so bad." That's true. They're not so
bad. But they're also not in the same league as Richard Seymour.

Frankly, the upgrade from Green to Seymour in the base D, and Wilfork/Warren
to Seymour in the pass rushing alignment, is a much greater upgrade than
Anthony Henry over Jacques Reeves.

> New England began the season with All-Pro
> defensive lineman Richard Seymour on the
> shelf, and super-sub Jarvis Green in his place.
>
> It would seem that nothing has changed - the
> Pats are allowing 78 yards rushing per game,
> the fifth-lowest average in the NFL. But Green
> is unlike most backup players since he is skilled
> enough to be a starter on nearly every other team
> in the league, and over his six seasons in New
> England, he has been called upon at various
> times to fill starting roles.

If Green is so "super", according to the article, then I guess undrafted
lineman Mike Wright is super too since the two split time (when Wright's
healthy, at least). Actually, I believe Wright started the Cowboys game,
and not Green.

>> "Peaking" is a fallacy. When did the Colts "peak" last year?
>
> Prior to the Cowboys' game, and with the return
> of Sanders, late in the season.

Dual peaks? What makes you think that the Pats won't experience two peaks?

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"Dave St.Onge" wrote in message
@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "observer" wrote ...
> >
> > Time of Possession -- Patriots had the
> > ball 38:25, the Cowboys 21:45. That's
> > got to be closer, or else the Cowboys
> > won't be able to compete against this
> > team.
> >
>
> And that was with mostly passing plays. Sorry, but I don't think Henry in
> the secondary will be able to alleviate that much...especially when you
> consider the Pats were raping the Cowboys with their slot WR (Welker)...

Phillips said, after the game, his defensive
plan was to "stop the run, first". Some com-
mented, thereafter, that a better plan would've
been to "stop the pass, first". With Henry, and
Reeves as 3rd corner, and Newman in his
pre-injury corner slot, and Ellis back to
starter status, and the Cowboys able to score
a TD in the 1st quarter (for a change), and
Tank Johnson (whom I mistakenly referred
to as Tank Williams, a post-Vikings faux
pas), and Terry Glenn, I like their chances
were a rematch to occur.

I also like the chances that some team, some-
where along the way, will provide a clue of
how to hamper the Patriots near-perfect pas-
sing attack, a clue which has yet to be found
by any team.

Tom Brady is having a season unmatched in
NFL history. I find it difficult to believe that
will continue, unabated, but have little evi-
dence that ... well, maybe the Redskins can
slow 'em down. Excellent secondary, there.

---

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>
> "observer" wrote ...
> >
> > "Dave St.Onge" wrote ...
> >>
> >> "observer" wrote ...
> >> >
> >> > Time of Possession -- Patriots had the
> >> > ball 38:25, the Cowboys 21:45. That's
> >> > got to be closer, or else the Cowboys
> >> > won't be able to compete against this
> >> > team.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And that was with mostly passing plays. Sorry, but I don't think
> >> Henry in the secondary will be able to alleviate that much...
> >> especially when you consider the Pats were raping the Cowboys
> >> with their slot WR (Welker)...
> >
> > Phillips said, after the game, his defensive
> > plan was to "stop the run, first". Some com-
> > mented, thereafter, that a better plan would've
> > been to "stop the pass, first". With Henry, and
> > Reeves as 3rd corner, and Newman in his
> > pre-injury corner slot, and Ellis back to
> > starter status, and the Cowboys able to score
> > a TD in the 1st quarter (for a change), and
> > Tank Johnson (whom I mistakenly referred
> > to as Tank Williams, a post-Vikings faux
> > pas), and Terry Glenn, I like their chances
> > were a rematch to occur.
>
> Enough ifs? One is particularly confusing to me though. How did you come
> to the conclusion that the Cowboys would be more likely to score a TD in the
> 1st quarter? Aren't the Pats among the best in the league at preventing
> first quarter scores? So even if the Cowboys managed to fix their broken
> first quarter scoring trend, why would they be more likely to score early
> than other teams? Sounds almost like you're saying "if the Cowboys offense
> plays better in the 1st quarter this time around...".

Well, on that same 'if' plane of thought,
-if- Seymour significantly improves the
Pats' 'D', and Brady continues his record-
setting pace unabated, and the Pats' trio
of receivers are unable to be slowed
down by any team, and no team is able
to figure out a Pats' weakness, and no
team is able to come within a hair of
defeating the Pats, then I'll have to
accept that the Cowboys' chances in
a rematch are not as good as I'd hoped. (-:

---